Skip to main content

Talking Like a Robot On the Phone When Talking to Customers? Be Careful...


Department of Health & Mental Hygiene v. Dillon - New York City Office Of Administrative Trials and Hearings 


Facts:  Ronald Dillon worked for the New York City Health Department, and in his current position, took calls on an information-technology line from other city workers and the public.  For a sixth month period in 2012 and 2013, Dillon apparently abandoned service requests, improperly transferred tickets to another desk and failed to provide correct descriptions of requests.  Perhaps most important to this blog post, Dillon answered the phone in an "unprofessional, robotic voice" and stated:  "You have reached the help desk.  This is Mr. Dillon.  How may I help you?"  As the call went on, Dillon would apparently revert to a "normal tone", but callers complained and Dillon was warned to stop talking on the phone in a robotic voice.  When Dillon continued to answer the phone in this manner, he was suspended without pay for 20 days.  Dillon subsequently contested this decision and claimed he was being unfairly singled out.  

Holding:  The Administrative Law Judge disagreed with Dillon's position that he should not have been suspended without pay.  The Judge pointed to the fact that Dillon had been warned that his behavior was not acceptable and that many complaints had been received as a result of his "robotic" telephone calls.  As to Dillon's argument that he was simply speaking carefully because he had a Brooklyn accent that some people had a hard time understanding and Dillon's boss was harassing him, the Judge was unswayed.  In essence, the Judge held that Dillon appeared to be a disgruntled employee that was simply acting out.

Judgment:  The Administrative Law Judge held that Dillon was properly suspended without pay as a result of his unprofessional conduct in answering the phone in a robotic voice, even when told to stop by his supervisor.

The Takeaway:  Beyond 'don't talk like a robot' while on the phone at work when it comes off as a disgruntled employee?  I think the important thing to keep in mind is when a supervisor reprimands you not to do something after complaints are made, and you still keep doing it, you do not have much ground to stand on when you are subsequently disciplined for acting out.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Administrative Law Judge Miller

Date:  October 7, 2014

Opinion:  http://archive.citylaw.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/oath/14_Cases/14-108.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more